ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®  – News and Updates on Religious Liberty and Freedom
Menu
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Church and State
  • In the News
  • In the News
  • Supreme Court
  • Free Speech
  • Legislation
Menu

SCOTUS Blocks Maine House from Enforcing Voting Ban on Censured Legislator

Posted on May 25, 2025 by ReligiousLiberty.TV

Justice Jackson dissents as majority grants emergency injunction in First Amendment challenge


In a 7-2 decision issued on May 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted emergency relief to Maine State Representative Laurel Libby, temporarily restoring her right to vote in the legislature after she was sanctioned for a social media post opposing transgender participation in girls’ sports. The case, Libby v. Fecteau, centers on the constitutional limits of legislative discipline and the scope of judicial intervention in statehouse disputes.

The Court’s unsigned order provides an injunction pending appeal, allowing Libby to resume her legislative duties while her case proceeds through the First Circuit and potentially returns to the Supreme Court. The decision does not reach the merits of her claims but signals skepticism about the state’s justification for disenfranchising a sitting legislator over protected speech.

Libby, who represents District 90, was censured by the Maine House and barred from speaking or voting after a February 2025 Facebook post in which she criticized a transgender athlete’s victory in the girls’ state pole vault competition. The House’s leadership demanded a public apology; when Libby refused, they invoked House rules to prohibit her from participating in any legislative votes for the remainder of her term, which runs through 2026.

Libby and six of her constituents filed suit, arguing the censure and voting ban violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and disenfranchised her district. They sought emergency relief after both the district court and the First Circuit declined to intervene, citing legislative immunity.

In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the Court should not have intervened, warning that the applicants had not demonstrated the “critical and exigent circumstances” required for emergency relief. She emphasized the lower courts’ active consideration of the case and noted there were no imminent votes in which Libby’s participation would alter legislative outcomes.

Jackson also raised concerns that the Court was engaging in “real-time error correction” absent a clear certiorari-worthy issue. “Applicants have failed to demonstrate that their right to this relief is ‘indisputably clear,’” she wrote, citing longstanding limitations on federal courts’ ability to second-guess state legislative disciplinary actions.

The majority did not provide a detailed explanation for its decision, consistent with standard emergency docket practice. The order states that the injunction will remain in effect until the First Circuit resolves the appeal and, if sought, the Supreme Court acts on any petition for certiorari.

The dispute traces its legal foundation to Powell v. McCormack (1969), in which the Supreme Court held that Congress could not exclude a duly elected representative who met the constitutional qualifications. Libby’s counsel invoked Powell, as well as Bond v. Floyd (1966), arguing that state legislatures likewise cannot nullify a district’s representation as punishment for protected political speech.

The dissenting opinion suggested that the case raises complex, unresolved questions about the boundaries of legislative self-governance and the role of federal courts in adjudicating internal statehouse discipline. Jackson identified a range of open constitutional questions, including whether legislative ethics rules can infringe on a representative’s speech rights and whether courts may enjoin legislative employees from enforcing such sanctions.

The case will now return to the First Circuit for expedited review. If Libby and her legal team seek certiorari after that decision, the Supreme Court’s current injunction will remain in place until it either denies the petition or issues a final ruling.

A decision from the First Circuit on the underlying appeal is expected in the coming months. The Supreme Court has not indicated whether it intends to grant full review.


Another take:

So … a sitting state legislator, Laurel Libby, posts on Facebook criticizing Maine’s policy that allows transgender-identifying male athletes to compete in girls’ sports—specifically pointing out that a biologically male athlete won the girls’ state pole vault championship—and in response, the Maine House votes to censure her. But they don’t stop there. They bar her from speaking or voting on any legislation unless she publicly apologizes. That’s not just discipline—that’s enforced ideological compliance.

And now the U.S. Supreme Court has to step in, issuing an emergency injunction just so a duly elected representative can do her job. Not because she broke the law, not because she disrupted proceedings, but because she expressed a constitutionally protected opinion about fairness in women’s sports.

Meanwhile, her district—District 90—has effectively lost its voice in the state legislature until the end of her term. On every vote, instead of a “yes” or “no,” the Clerk records Libby with a “Z”, which means her vote is not counted. Not present. Not heard. Thousands of constituents, silenced by a procedural technicality designed to punish speech.

And Justice Jackson, in dissent, says there’s no “critical and exigent” reason for the Court to intervene. But if a legislator being stripped of voting rights over a Facebook post isn’t critical, what is? When public disagreement with official policy leads to political erasure, that’s not a routine matter—it’s a constitutional red flag.

This isn’t about liking or disliking what Libby said. It’s about whether elected officials can be shut down by their own chamber for expressing disfavored views on a matter of public policy. The answer, according to the Supreme Court—for now—is no. And that matters.

Category: Current Events

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

©2025 ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom® – News and Updates on Religious Liberty and Freedom
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experience, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}